Respond to each discussion persons post in 250 words and give your opinions and thoughts.
Discussion 1
Did the Controlled Substances Act authorize the U.S. Attorney General to ban the use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide?
The Controlled Substances Act was enacted in 1970 to combat drug abuse and to control all traffic of controlled drugs (1). This act allowed the Attorney General to add, remove, or reschedule substances only after findings from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This act also states that prescriptions must be used for legitimate medical purposes by an individual practitioner actin in the usual course of his professional practice. This act also requires the doctors to register with the attorney general(1).
Also the Attorney General may deny, suspend, or revoke a doctors registration if he finds that a doctor is not acting within the public interest. The Oregon Death With Dignity Act was passed in Oregon which exempts licensed physicians from civil or criminal liability. The Attorney General issued an Interpretive rule stating that assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical practice. The ruling was challenged. The distract court enjoined its enforcement.
The Ninth Circuit Court invalidated the rule stating that the state did not have the authority as it was a federal offense. The court held that CSA does not allow the Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in doctor assisted suicide under state law that allows the procedure. The courts have held that an administrative interpretation of one own issuing regulation may receive ambiguous statue (2). To answer the question the controlled Substance Act did not authorize the US Attorney General to ban the use of controlled substances for physician assisted suicide as the doctor may see assisted suicide as a legitimate medical procedure.
Did the Court get it right? Why or why not?
Yes, the court did get it right as medical decisions are between the doctor and the patient. The government should not be involved in medical decisions. The state should not get involved with a person personal medical files, findings, or decisions. The government does not want to help pay for medical services but would like to intervene to make health decisions. If the government is not willing to pay for health care thru insurance then how should the government get a say when a person decides to live or die. The choice of life is a personal decision that should be left up to the person making the decision.
One argues that the person maybe suffering from depression but if a person has a terminal illness and they are going to die any way a person should be able to choose when and how they die. Also a person should be able to chose how they live. If the government feels that they should be allowed to make this decision then they should have to foot the bill for medical care and or all bills associated with life after the decision has been made and they interfere.
Discussion 2
The purpose of the Controlled Substances Act is to limit the potential of drug abuse.[1] The term drug abuse applies to the abuse of both legal and illegal drugs, as well as the instances of prescriptions without a justified reason.[2] Due to the fact that individual states are able to determine what is considered a valid medical cause, some procedures, such as assisted suicide, maybe open for interpretation.[3] It is important to note that the Attorney General is able to make specific changes to the roster of Controlled Substances, provided the Attorney General follows a specific guideline.[4] One of the caveats is that the Attorney General follows the findings of the Secretary of Health and Human Services when any medical or scientific assessment is conducted.[5]
The question before the Court is whether the Attorney General, through the Controlled Substances Act, can prohibit drugs from being prescribed to use in an assisted suicide.[6]
It is important to note that the Schedule of Drugs categorizes specific drugs based on their usefulness in treating medical conditions and the dangers or chance of addiction.[7] For example, a Schedule 1 drug would have high addiction and no accepted medical use whereas a Schedule 2 has high addiction but accepted medical use.[8]
Based on the presented foundation, the Court explored the Controlled Substances Act, as well as the Oregon Law[9] which allows for the use of controlled substances in assisted suicides. The Court found that the Attorney General cannot prohibit the use of drugs from being prescribed in assisted suicide.
One of the main factors in deciding this case was the fact that the Court acknowledged a State has the ability to determine what is considered an acceptable medical use.[10] Additionally, the Court determined that in enacting the Controlled Substance Act, Congress sought to limit the ability of doctors from engaging in in illegal drug trafficking; not to determine or define what constitutes acceptable medical use.[11]
I believe this is the correct assessment since the Attorney General was trying to define what is considered an acceptable medical process, and not seeking to change the schedule of a drug, which is within the purview of the Controlled Substance Act. For example, should hypothetical "Drug A" be classified under a Schedule 1 drug, but a medical breakthrough determines "Drug A" can be utilized to treat a specific condition, then the Attorney General can reschedule "Drug A." Conversely, if "Drug B" is a schedule 4 drug, but any medical benefit is disproven and the drug is highly addictive, then the Attorney General can re-classify "Drug B" as a Schedule 1 drug. Both of these hypotheticals assume that the Attorney General followed the five step process listed in the Controlled Substances Act.[12]
Further, the Controlled Substances Act does not discuss the practice of medicine and what constitutes an acceptable medical procedure.[13] Additionally, the Controlled Substance Act specifically acknowledges States rights, as they pertain to formulating and determining what constitutes acceptable medical procedures.[14] These two points were addressed in the Opinion of the Court as important factors in the Court's decision.[15]